Sam mentions a survey showing that 95 percent of people who purchased a Starlight automobile in the last year said they were highly satisfied with it. Based on the premise that if the cars had manufacturing defects, these people would not have been highly satisfied with the cars, Sam concludes that Starlight automobiles must be "remarkably free" of manufacturing defects. Tina just responds by saying that some manufacturing defects in cars don't become evident until after several years of use, implying that Starlight automobiles aren't necessarily free of manufacturing defects — the manufacturing defects might just not have become clear to the owners, who have had the cars for less than a year.

Sam's argument has a few flaws. Notice, for example, that to say Starlight automobiles are "remarkably free" of manufacturing defects makes an implicit comparison to other automobiles, and assumes that other brands will have more defects.

Tiya's argument, meanwhile, is focused on Sam's assumption that the survey evidence is sufficient for drawing a conclusion about manufacturing defects. By pointing out that some manufacturing defects don't show up until years later, Tiya calls into question whether Sam's evidence is sufficient to come to his conclusion, since his evidence is a survey entirely focused on Starlight automobile owners within a year from their purchase. Thus, Tiya suggests that the timeframe of the survey is too short to use the survey evidence to come to a conclusion about manufacturing defects.

This, in turn, undermines Sam's conditional premise that if the cars had manufacturing defects, the survey respondents would not have been highly satisfied with the cars. The new information reduces this claim, at best, to "if these cars had manufacturing defects that showed up in the first year, these people would not have been highly satisfied with these cars". Since Sam's argument relies so heavily on the contrapositive of the original premise — since these people were satisfied with the cars, the cars must be free of manufacturing defects — the additional information Tiya provides thus strongly undermines all the support, meaning both the evidence and the conditional premise, for Sam's conclusion.